[jdonn]

That's why we only play when you pay me exorbitant sums.

[whereagles]

justin, go sit in the corner and say 100 times: "I shall not mention the G-word again"

[the hog]

I open light and so this is worth only 3S. Opener has shown an unbalanced hand with at least 4C and 4S, probably 5+ 4. In view of this my C singleton does not look that promising opposite opener's C suit.
To those who suggest that 4C is a splinter - try it undiscussed in real life and see what ensues and then apologise to your partner. We, for example, play this as slammish with H and C. It is hardly a "Standard bid" to play this as a splinter, rather the opposite, in fact.

[Winstonm]

Jlall, on Apr 1 2007, 04:57 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 1 2007, 04:55 PM, said:

Quite sure, it's a standard bid I have no worry that anyone I play with regularly would misinterpret.

I would take it as gerber.

4C is ALWAYS Gerber.

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Apr 1 2007, 10:30 PM, said:

I open light and so this is worth only 3S. Opener has shown an unbalanced hand with at least 4C and 4S, probably 5+ 4. In view of this my C singleton does not look that promising opposite opener's C suit.
To those who suggest that 4C is a splinter - try it undiscussed in real life and see what ensues and then apologise to your partner. We, for example, play this as slammish with H and C. It is hardly a "Standard bid" to play this as a splinter, rather the opposite, in fact.

I don't know what country you are from, so what I am saying only pertains to the US as far as I know for sure. If you are from somewhere else then I have no idea.

4♣ is a splinter bid on that auction even though partner opened 1♣, that is standard. I don't even know where this controversy is coming from. Slam tries in clubs go through 4th suit forcing, or bid 3♣ if you have agreed that is forcing instead.

[helene_t]

mhais, on Apr 1 2007, 04:33 PM, said:

2nt is forcing asking pd to describe his hand further in this case i will bid 4s.

Huh? What system are you playing? Standard is 2♦, fsf.

This hand is a 6-LTC hand. It might have 11 HCPs (don't know how to count HCPs in a major-suit-fit situation, I never do that) but 6 LTC is enough to force to game unless p opens very light, even with quarky minor-suit hands.

I'm surprised that some say that 4♣ is a splinter. I never splinter in partner's suit. If this sequence does not promise four clubs by opener, maybe it could be argued that clubs is not a "suit", but that sounds dangerous to me. If clubs is not a suit, 2♦ would probably be natural and non-forcing and I would have to bid 3♦ (or 3♣, ugh) on a fony suit if I wanted to do something forcing.

Another reason why 4♣ is not a splinter is that 3♣ is not forcing in standard methods. A splinter is per definition a jump one level higher than the game-forcing bid in that suit.

[Echognome]

jdonn, on Apr 1 2007, 10:42 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Apr 1 2007, 10:30 PM, said:

I open light and so this is worth only 3S. Opener has shown an unbalanced hand with at least 4C and 4S, probably 5+ 4. In view of this my C singleton does not look that promising opposite opener's C suit.
To those who suggest that 4C is a splinter - try it undiscussed in real life and see what ensues and then apologise to your partner. We, for example, play this as slammish with H and C. It is hardly a "Standard bid" to play this as a splinter, rather the opposite, in fact.

I don't know what country you are from, so what I am saying only pertains to the US as far as I know for sure. If you are from somewhere else then I have no idea.

4♣ is a splinter bid on that auction even though partner opened 1♣, that is standard. I don't even know where this controversy is coming from. Slam tries in clubs go through 4th suit forcing, or bid 3♣ if you have agreed that is forcing instead.

I think it might depend somewhat on what 1♠ promises. Many play it shows 4♠ and 5+♣. In that case, using 4♣ as a splinter doesn't make much sense. However, if you bid 4 card suits up the line so that 1♠ can be anything from a 4=3=3=3 hand to a 4=2=1=6 hand, then a splinter makes more sense.

[whereagles]

thou speakst ze truth!

[the hog]

jdonn, on Apr 2 2007, 01:42 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Apr 1 2007, 10:30 PM, said:

I open light and so this is worth only 3S. Opener has shown an unbalanced hand with at least 4C and 4S, probably 5+ 4. In view of this my C singleton does not look that promising opposite opener's C suit.
To those who suggest that 4C is a splinter - try it undiscussed in real life and see what ensues and then apologise to your partner. We, for example, play this as slammish with H and C. It is hardly a "Standard bid" to play this as a splinter, rather the opposite, in fact.

I don't know what country you are from, so what I am saying only pertains to the US as far as I know for sure. If you are from somewhere else then I have no idea.

4♣ is a splinter bid on that auction even though partner opened 1♣, that is standard. I don't even know where this controversy is coming from. Slam tries in clubs go through 4th suit forcing, or bid 3♣ if you have agreed that is forcing instead.

I am originally from Australia. 4C would ALWAYS be taken as showing C and indeed to splinter in a suit of partner's is llogical to me, and would be so to everyone I have ever played with, and this includes a number of internationals.

BTW now I live in Laos!

[skjaeran]

jillybean2, on Apr 1 2007, 11:17 PM, said:

I never considered 4♣ splinter, are you sure you wont be playing 5♣? 

I've never had a partner who'd misinterpret 4♣ here - that's a splinter in my environment, period.

[mikeh]

jdonn, on Apr 1 2007, 11:37 AM, said:

Why not bid 4♣, this is a splinter even though it's in the suit partner opened so it seems perfect.

This hand is too weak, in terms of playability, to suggest slam, and a 4-level splinter has to carry some mild slam interest. 4441 hands generally play at less than their apparent value unless we have a 9 card fit somewhere, and we rate not to have one here. The stiff opposite partner's suit is not as valuable, for slam purposes as it would be elsewhere.

So I'd just bid 4♠ on this hand.

BTW, in response to earlier posts, I have no trouble with the notion that the 1♠ promises 9+ black cards, and I find it very useful to have this information. Thus, if we held Jx KQxxx Jxx 10xx, we could safely bid 2♣ here without fear that partner held some weak notrump with 4=3=3=3 shape. And it also makes constructive bidding more accurate: I can 'count' on 5 clubs for tricks in notrump if I have a fit, and I can count on shape for suit bidding etc. Thus, here, knowledge of at least 5 clubs would actually increase my liking of my hand, since there is a prospect of establishing the long club for a trick... an element missing if he could be 4432 or 4333.. but not enough to make me slammish with this hand anyway.

The increasingly common middle ground of 1♠ promising at least 4♣s is intriguing and I may be rethinking my approach as I look to see what kind of difference it makes...

[han]

I would not hesitate to make a 4C splinter undiscussed, at least not with North American or Dutch or German partners. Of course, if it leads to an accident then I will apologize and then educate partner (just kidding).

I don't find Echo's argument (That a splinter in a suit in which partner has shown length doesn't make sense) very convincing. Won't partner be able to evaluate better after the splinter? Couldn't partner have Axxxx as well as KJxxx?

Perhaps Echo meant that using 4C as a natural slam try makes more sense if 1S guarantees club length? That I would somewhat understand, but when playing XYZ (as he and I do) you can just bid 3C with strong hearts and clubs, so I think the splinter is still more useful.

Also, I would not assume that partner is unbalanced for 1S, again there seems to be no worldwide standard.

[han]

mikeh, on Apr 2 2007, 01:42 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 1 2007, 11:37 AM, said:

Why not bid 4♣, this is a splinter even though it's in the suit partner opened so it seems perfect.

This hand is too weak .... So I'd just bid 4♠ on this hand.

...

The increasingly common middle ground of 1♠ promising at least 4♣s is intriguing and I may be rethinking my approach as I look to see what kind of difference it makes...

I also wouldn't splinter on this hand, and I like to play that 1S promises 4+ clubs.

[jdonn]

mikeh, on Apr 2 2007, 01:42 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 1 2007, 11:37 AM, said:

Why not bid 4♣, this is a splinter even though it's in the suit partner opened so it seems perfect.

This hand is too weak, in terms of playability, to suggest slam, and a 4-level splinter has to carry some mild slam interest. 4441 hands generally play at less than their apparent value unless we have a 9 card fit somewhere, and we rate not to have one here. The stiff opposite partner's suit is not as valuable, for slam purposes as it would be elsewhere.

So I'd just bid 4♠ on this hand.

BTW, in response to earlier posts, I have no trouble with the notion that the 1♠ promises 9+ black cards, and I find it very useful to have this information. Thus, if we held Jx KQxxx Jxx 10xx, we could safely bid 2♣ here without fear that partner held some weak notrump with 4=3=3=3 shape. And it also makes constructive bidding more accurate: I can 'count' on 5 clubs for tricks in notrump if I have a fit, and I can count on shape for suit bidding etc. Thus, here, knowledge of at least 5 clubs would actually increase my liking of my hand, since there is a prospect of establishing the long club for a trick... an element missing if he could be 4432 or 4333.. but not enough to make me slammish with this hand anyway.

The increasingly common middle ground of 1♠ promising at least 4♣s is intriguing and I may be rethinking my approach as I look to see what kind of difference it makes...

I suppose we will just agree to disagree. The splinter should be a game force without extra values that is suitable for slam if we fit well, and that is exactly what we hold. I concede the singleton is less valuable in clubs than in another suit more often than not, but I think that misses the point. That is why we play splinters altogether, because partner will know for sure how well we fit a lot better than we will by just generalizing. It is also key that we show slam suitable cards on the way to game, where if we just jumped to game partner would be forced to worry that our values are slower.

Your post at least makes it clear you are in the sane vast majority who knows what 4♣ means, not that I would have doubted it

[mikeh]

BTW, if I held Axxx AKxxx xxx x, I would splinter, so I suspect that jdonn and I are not miles apart.

[skjaeran]

jdonn, on Apr 2 2007, 10:00 PM, said:

mikeh, on Apr 2 2007, 01:42 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 1 2007, 11:37 AM, said:

Why not bid 4♣, this is a splinter even though it's in the suit partner opened so it seems perfect.

This hand is too weak, in terms of playability, to suggest slam, and a 4-level splinter has to carry some mild slam interest. 4441 hands generally play at less than their apparent value unless we have a 9 card fit somewhere, and we rate not to have one here. The stiff opposite partner's suit is not as valuable, for slam purposes as it would be elsewhere.

So I'd just bid 4♠ on this hand.

BTW, in response to earlier posts, I have no trouble with the notion that the 1♠ promises 9+ black cards, and I find it very useful to have this information. Thus, if we held Jx KQxxx Jxx 10xx, we could safely bid 2♣ here without fear that partner held some weak notrump with 4=3=3=3 shape. And it also makes constructive bidding more accurate: I can 'count' on 5 clubs for tricks in notrump if I have a fit, and I can count on shape for suit bidding etc. Thus, here, knowledge of at least 5 clubs would actually increase my liking of my hand, since there is a prospect of establishing the long club for a trick... an element missing if he could be 4432 or 4333.. but not enough to make me slammish with this hand anyway.

The increasingly common middle ground of 1♠ promising at least 4♣s is intriguing and I may be rethinking my approach as I look to see what kind of difference it makes...

I suppose we will just agree to disagree. The splinter should be a game force without extra values that is suitable for slam if we fit well, and that is exactly what we hold. I concede the singleton is less valuable in clubs than in another suit more often than not, but I think that misses the point. That is why we play splinters altogether, because partner will know for sure how well we fit a lot better than we will by just generalizing. It is also key that we show slam suitable cards on the way to game, where if we just jumped to game partner would be forced to worry that our values are slower.

Your post at least makes it clear you are in the sane vast majority who knows what 4♣ means, not that I would have doubted it

100% agree with Josh.

[Apollo81]

I'm going to throw in with the splinter crowd.

I'm not sure if that includes anyone other than jdonn since I'm too lazy to read all the posts =)

[hrothgar]

jdonn, on Apr 2 2007, 11:00 PM, said:

Your post at least makes it clear you are in the sane vast majority who knows what 4♣ means, not that I would have doubted it

Jesus Christ

You two are arguing about local custom and usage... In a shocking development the Aussies don't interprete a 4♣ jump in the same was as the North Americans. Will wonders never cease?

In all seriousness, if a random partner sprung the auction

1♣ - 1♥
1♠ - 4♣

on me, I'd expect that it was a splinter. Even so, I can see a lot of validity to the alternative interpretation. As an analogy, many schools of cue bidding state that you should not cuebid shortage in partner's known suit since fitting honors are much more useful. If you extend this logic, I think that you can make a viable case that 4♣ should show some kind of picture jump showing Hearts, Spades, and a club fragment.

[Echognome]

Hannie, on Apr 2 2007, 10:52 AM, said:

I don't find Echo's argument (That a splinter in a suit in which partner has shown length doesn't make sense) very convincing. Won't partner be able to evaluate better after the splinter? Couldn't partner have Axxxx as well as KJxxx?

Perhaps Echo meant that using 4C as a natural slam try makes more sense if 1S guarantees club length? That I would somewhat understand, but when playing XYZ (as he and I do) you can just bid 3C with strong hearts and clubs, so I think the splinter is still more useful.

My cursory discussion was not even worthy of being called an 'argument'. I was just trying to state why there might be some differences in approach. I really don't know what the best treatment is, as I haven't thought about it much. Certainly, having 4♣ agreed as splinter is better than having no agreement at all. I also agree with Han that under my current xyz structure (thanks Mike) we can bid not only 3♣, but also 2NT to raise clubs naturally. Thus, using 4♣ as a splinter probably makes more sense.

[whereagles]

I think one should discuss with pard a little more than "let's play splinters". You can play those in a dozen different way (limited, unlimited, slam invite, merely shape-showing, etc), so you really need to settle which version you're playing